A Senate bill that would have defined nuclear energy as clean energy died along party lines in committee Thursday.

Introduced by Sen. Larry Liston, R-Colorado Springs, SB24-039 would have included nuclear energy in the statutory definition of clean energy sources, thus rendering it eligible for clean energy project funding. During discussion, opponents said such a designation would have a negative impact on the environment, while proponents listed the benefits of using nuclear energy.

After length discussion, the Senate Committee of Transportation and Energy voted 4-3 to kill the measure.

“It is our responsibility to lay the groundwork for the development of reliable and renewable energy for future generations to come, and this bill would have done exactly that,” said Liston upon the bill’s defeat. “Nuclear energy is clean, reliable, sustainable, and safe. By correctly defining it as such, we would have invited its development and ultimate deployment.”

According to the bill, nuclear energy is the largest source of carbon-free electricity generation in the U.S.

Grace Stanke, a nuclear engineer and Miss America 2023, served as the star witness in favor of the bill. She addressed the preconceived notions many people have about nuclear energy due to disasters like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island by citing an OSHA report that found only eight industries to be safer than nuclear power. Stanke emphasized the advancements made in nuclear technology in the past several decades and highlighted the economic opportunities that investing in nuclear energy could offer to the state, as outlined in the bill. 

“This is a bipartisan issue now. This is not one-sided,” she said. “Whether you care about climate change and creating emissions-free energy, or whether you care about building communities with incredibly high paying jobs at a nuclear power plant. The science is there, we just need to give it the green light to let this happen.”

While the bill itself does not call for the construction of any nuclear plants in the state, testimony from several witnesses both for and against the bill referenced the Comanche 3 Power Plant in Pueblo. The coal plant has been slated for retirement by 2031. An advisory committee established by the plant’s partial owner, Xcel Energy, recently proposed converting it into a nuclear site upon its closure. The committee considered a total of 12 different energy generation technologies, including carbon capture and solar energy, but it concluded that nuclear would generate the most tax revenue and jobs. The committee’s recommendation is currently pending approval by Xcel.

Ean Tafoya of the environmentalist organization GreenLatinos claimed that the committee selected in Pueblo was “stacked” with people in favor of nuclear power. He also highlighted the the historical context of environmental racism rooted in placing nuclear power plants in low-income and Indigenous communities.  

Other opponents of the bill expressed their concern with the high costs and negative environmental impact associated with nuclear power plants. 

Paul Sherman of Conservation Colorado spoke of the harmful nature of nuclear waste, saying it is highly radioactive and can cause harm to both humans and the environment centuries after its disposal. 

“Between the cost and and feasibility of building new reactors and the lack of waste management solutions, investing in nuclear energy worsens the climate crisis because it redistributes money that could be used to invest in more efficient forms of energy, like solar and wind, whose efficiency and climate protection are proven,” he said. 

Alana Miller of the Natural Resources Defense Center advocated for the use of safer and more cost-efficient clean energy sources when voicing her opposition for the bill. 

“Putting attention and resources into this speculative technology threatens to undermine less expensive climate solutions that are available today to reduce emissions from Colorado’s energy sector,” she said. “Nuclear power derived by fission is not clean and should not be labeled as such by Colorado statute. For nuclear power to play any role in a clean energy future, it must address the challenges of cost, environmental radiation, nuclear waste, and nuclear weapons proliferation. Absent a pathway to meet those challenges, nuclear fission is a false solution for Colorado to act on climate.”

Adam Eckman, President and CEO of the Colorado Mining Association, spoke in support of using nuclear power in conjunction with other energy sources to diversify the state’s energy portfolio. He said nuclear energy “helps compliment other energy sources by providing baseload power and driving down overall energy prices. Nuclear energy is a vital component of Colorado’s carbon emissions reduction goals.” 

Liston urged his fellow committee members from both parties to advance the bill to the floor for broader discussion.

“I can guarantee you that members on both sides of the aisle want this bill and are keenly interested in this bill,” he said. “I’m glad that Democrats are supporting this, I’m glad that Republicans are supporting this, as we should. I’m not supporting this as a Republican. I’m supporting this as a person who is also concerned about our environment here in Colorado.” 

Fellow Republican, Sen. Byron Pelton of Sterling, voted to pass the bill along, stating, “we’ve been told several times on our side of the aisle to trust the science in climate change. Well, I’m asking to trust the science that nuclear energy is clean energy, and I think that that is a fair thing to ask in this situation.” 

The third and final Republican on the committee, Sen. Cleave Simpson of Alamosa, also voted in favor of the bill but the committee’s four Democrats voted against it.

“I’m not saying no to nuclear energy,” Sen. Lisa Cutter, D-Littleton, said, adding that she was hesitant to vote for the bill because she’s concerned about the effects of nuclear waste. 

Liston ran a similar bill during the 2023 session, which also died in committee.